On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:43 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
Or better yet, how about if you chill out and entertain the possibility - > just for the fun of it - that I might actually have a good point. (Gasp!) I > know, it's a shocking thought. Seems crazy at first but surely somebody as > open-minded as you can warm up to such an outrageous thought eventually, > right? > > Ok, I'd love to David. Just show it to me. Let me see your "good point". I'd take your word for it, but I'm afraid according to the rules of empiricism, I'll actually need some evidence for the assertion. I'm an idealist, not a fantasist. > John said: > Nobody outside this forum gives a fig for the MoQ. Pirsig's just another > author in a world full of 'em, and reading books is boring. > > > dmb says: > > That's not exactly true. Pragmatism is very mainstream these days so > Pirsig's main ideas are already out there in circulation. It would even be > fair to say that it's fashionable these days. I'm overwhelmed at what stroke > of luck this is. I don't see how things could be riper for Pirsig's work and > I think I see an opening, but you don't you care that. The point is, lots of > people give a fig. I'd cite sources as evidence but you don't care about > that either. > > Another unfounded assertion. But your feeling tetchy, I can see. What else is new. Good luck with all that. I wouldn't want to disparage or discourage any meaningful effort to get some progress along the road you've chosen. I'm cynical, but that's me. I did happen upon a website the other day that was centered around Values studies. What values are. They had a 100 books listed, all kinds of crappy authors and not one mention of Pirsig, whom I think wrote the supreme enquiry into values. Made me grumpy, it did. > > John said: > > The only reason I brought Royce up David, was to illustrate a point I was > trying to make that being so closed off to reading Royce, James's lifetime > friend and sparring partner, sorta revealed something about you. That's > the advantage of intersubjective dialogue, to get differing perspectives on > the self. But once again, seeing the reaction I get, I ask myself again, > "why bother?" But this time, since it concerns you directly, I'm asking the > wrong person when I ask myself. I should be asking you. > > > dmb says: > > Am I "closed off" to Royce and that reveals something about me? Pretending > that I didn't give my reasons or support them with the relevant textual > evidence just won't work. Nah, your textual evidence was thin and inaccurate. I've posted much more in evidence of some interesting correlations between Royce and Pirsig and you've countered with little. He's Hegelian, you put out there twice, even though the refutations to that I've offered again and again. > All this stuff is recorded and archived. I can play the tape so denying it > will only make you look dishonest. You've shoved the actual reasons aside > and replaced them with sinister motives and character flaws. I believe > that's called "adding insult to injury". Who is being closed-minded here, > John? You're the one who literally refuses to even acknowledge that reasons > count as reasons. Who deserves to be asking themselves, "why bother"? > Play the tape then. Show me where you've offered actual textual evidence that is more than a cursory dismissal. More than some other philosophologistic opinion. Make me look dishonest. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. But you can't just whine that you've "made your case". You actually have to make a case. > > Seriously, man, why are those reasons not good enough? Why don't they > count? How does your refusal to acknowledge such evidence NOT count as being > "closed off" or "closed-minded"? What "reasons"? That he's just a Hegelian? That he used the term "Absolute Thought" at one time early in his career? You haven't given any reasons Dave, just your knee-jerk reactions. They only seem like all-important reasons to you because everything in your head seems all-important to you. But real reason is presenting a case that a reasonable person can follow. By all means, I invite you to do so. I've only been asking for that all along, after all. > Don't you think this refusal reveals something about you? Don't you think > it sends a clear message? To me, it clearly says that trying to reason with > you on this topic is quite futile. I suspect that's because you are > powerfully committed to some theistic, absolutist beliefs and that means > contrary evidence is perceived as a painful thing that could only come from > monsters. Thus my reasons are a form of evil and they only prove that there > must be something wrong me. That's not how you defend an idea unless you're > some kind of fanatic. > > Yes, I realize that is your conclusion. It has been your conclusion for about as long as I've been communicating with you. That conclusion, is a big part of the problem I have with you. I don't know what it would do to make you see me any different than who I am. I've communicated who I am as openly, honestly and sincerely as I can. I've revealed myself as much as anybody I can think of. To my mind, nothing you conclude about me matches the way I see myself, but how can I possibly change your mind when you don't want it changed? And what more am I supposed to say about myself that I haven't already? I probably say too much about myself as it is. > > And I'd be happy to admit you trying to make a case when you cite Royce or > a secondary source like Kuklick but I really don't know how to handle that > stuff without some explanations from you as to its meaning, its context, the > definitions of the terms as he's using them. Most of the time, I just don't > see what it's supposed to mean, your answer to the evolution question for > example. Huh? > > Well a forum like this, if you want clarification, it's easy to get. Just ask. But really it was Marsha who asked the question, and if she needs more clarification for my answer she hasn't mentioned it. Why do you have trouble understanding philosophy? I thought you were one? > That dude has got to have the most unfortunate name ever, by the way. The > conversation on campus that gets repeated over and over probably goes > something like this: "Are you taking the Kuklick course this semester?" "No, > my boyfriend already taught me how." And then they both laugh like they were > the first ones to ever make that joke. > > Kids. Whatya gonna do? > > Well, I never heard of him before I enjoined this conversation, and the people I hang with don't discuss such things. I only know he's a pretty respected thinker because Matt told me so, and the fact that he's (Kuklick) is an atheist but still he highly appreciative of Royce's thinking led me to assume the theistic overtones aren't quite so off-putting for some as others. But as always, I'm probably wrong. John Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
